segunda-feira, 25 de julho de 2016

Demography of Germany

Basic facts about German Demography:

1> Natural change in the muslim german population in 2015 was +77 thousand. Source
2> Natural change in the ethnic german population was negative 425 thousand in 2015, which is projected to further drop every year by increasingly large amounts as projected by the Federal Statistical Office (Destatis). Source
3> We assume a stable population from non-german Europeans/Americans, a population with negative natural change but replenished by immigration due to high wages in Germany.
4> In 2015 Germany received over 1.1 million refugees, the vast majority muslim, and deported only 100 thousand.
5> For years 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 we use official german demographical data. For further years we extrapolate the current trend.

Conclusion:

Muslims will be the majority group by 2050 in Germany.

Year Germans European/Americas Asian (Non-Muslim) African (Non-Muslim) Muslim Total
2012 65 550 000 9 905 000 778 000 817 000 3 349 000 80 399 000
2013 65 125 000 9 905 000 785 780 857 850 4 093 370 80 767 000
2014 64 700 000 9 905 000 793 638 900 743 5 068 000 81 198 000
2015 64 275 000 9 905 000 801 574 945 780 6 000 000 81 927 354
2016 63 850 000 9 905 000 809 590 993 069 7 100 000 82 657 659
2017 63 410 000 9 905 000 817 686 1 042 722 8 200 000 83 375 408
2018 62 955 000 9 905 000 825 863 1 094 858 9 300 000 84 080 721
2019 62 485 000 9 905 000 834 121 1 149 601 10 400 000 84 773 722
2020 62 000 000 9 905 000 842 463 1 207 081 11 500 000 85 454 544
2021 61 500 000 9 905 000 850 887 1 267 435 12 600 000 86 123 322
2022 60 985 000 9 905 000 859 396 1 330 807 13 700 000 86 780 203
2023 60 455 000 9 905 000 867 990 1 397 347 14 800 000 87 425 337
2024 59 910 000 9 905 000 876 670 1 467 215 15 900 000 88 058 884
2025 59 350 000 9 905 000 885 437 1 540 575 17 000 000 88 681 012
2026 58 775 000 9 905 000 894 291 1 617 604 18 100 000 89 291 895
2027 58 185 000 9 905 000 903 234 1 698 484 19 200 000 89 891 718
2028 57 580 000 9 905 000 912 266 1 783 409 20 300 000 90 480 675
2029 56 960 000 9 905 000 921 389 1 872 579 21 400 000 91 058 968
2030 56 325 000 9 905 000 930 603 1 966 208 22 500 000 91 626 811
2031 55 675 000 9 905 000 939 909 2 064 518 23 600 000 92 184 427
2032 55 010 000 9 905 000 949 308 2 167 744 24 700 000 92 732 052
2033 54 330 000 9 905 000 958 801 2 276 131 25 800 000 93 269 932
2034 53 635 000 9 905 000 968 389 2 389 938 26 900 000 93 798 327
2035 52 925 000 9 905 000 978 073 2 509 435 28 000 000 94 317 508
2036 52 200 000 9 905 000 987 854 2 634 907 29 100 000 94 827 760
2037 51 460 000 9 905 000 997 732 2 766 652 30 200 000 95 329 384
2038 50 705 000 9 905 000 1 007 709 2 904 985 31 300 000 95 822 694
2039 49 935 000 9 905 000 1 017 787 3 050 234 32 400 000 96 308 020
2040 49 150 000 9 905 000 1 027 964 3 202 746 33 500 000 96 785 710
2041 48 350 000 9 905 000 1 038 244 3 362 883 34 600 000 97 256 127
2042 47 535 000 9 905 000 1 048 626 3 531 027 35 700 000 97 719 653
2043 46 705 000 9 905 000 1 059 113 3 707 578 36 800 000 98 176 691
2044 45 860 000 9 905 000 1 069 704 3 892 957 37 900 000 98 627 661
2045 45 000 000 9 905 000 1 080 401 4 087 605 39 000 000 99 073 006
2046 44 125 000 9 905 000 1 091 205 4 291 985 40 100 000 99 513 190
2047 43 235 000 9 905 000 1 102 117 4 506 585 41 200 000 99 948 701
2048 42 330 000 9 905 000 1 113 138 4 731 914 42 300 000 100 380 052
2049 41 410 000 9 905 000 1 124 269 4 968 509 43 400 000 100 807 779
2050 40 475 000 9 905 000 1 135 512 5 216 935 44 500 000 101 232 447




For comparison, this is what Africa's demography looks like: Source


UN Nigeria report: Source


Comparing Poland, Egypt and Ethiopia:


And finally, let's remember those that voted in favor of the EU Parliament african & islamic migrant quotas:

http://www.votewatch.eu/en/term8-council-decision-establishing-provisional-measures-in-the-area-of-international-protection-for-the-b-9.html

sexta-feira, 24 de junho de 2016

Brexit

I think it's very bad, the UK was a very positive voice in the EU, against forced decisions, against the euro, fairly moderate (in opposition to the hardcore marxism of germany/sweden/etc). The UK is a great power, one that you want on your side. A great country.

The main problem in the EU is Merkel and her marxists, who say "if you don't share our values, get out".

But there is a lot of positive things in the EU. It could be a brotherhood of christian countries. It stopped the "beggar thy neighbor" fights between various countries when it comes to protecionism. It gave the right to live in another EU country if you want.

I was expecting that the EU could become more like the UK-EU relationship, move out of the forced on our throats Merkel decisions, it should allow countries to opt-out of more decisions like the UK has many opt-out powers...


Without the UK the European parliament is pretty much 90% leftist right now, the only other country left with many opt-outs is Denmark. It will be impossible to achieve majority with the current set of countries in the EU parliament, and the Merkel reaction might be to demand even more subservience from the remaining countries...

Just wanted to write down my oppinion on this very important topic.

:(

quarta-feira, 22 de junho de 2016

OFE - No, the fees were not crazy high


Fees for OFE were 7% one time, initial fee + 0,045% every year.

Time to retirement is 40 years initially, going down to zero, so it averages 20 years for any given amount of money invested.

USA 401k retirement fees according to the "401k Averages Book" are small initially, but then every year you pay between 0,3% and 1,8%. The OFE fee is roughtly equivalent to a every year 0,5% fee over 20 years.

Value in 20 years = After Fee*((1+5% per year return - Yearly Fee)^Years)


Initial Initial Fee After Fee Yearly Fee Value in 20 years, at 5% per year Amount of fees
OFE 10000 700 9300 0,045% 24465 784
0,5% Fee 10000 0 10000 0,5% 24117 1049
Min 401k 10000 0 10000 0,3% 25057 617
Max 401k 10000 0 10000 1,8% 18775 4287

The actual OFE results should be a little worse than this table since you can imagine you will earn more in your second half of your live than in your first one, but I don't think it would be such a dramatic difference.

One time fees can be converted into repetitive fees.


sexta-feira, 17 de junho de 2016

War in Ukraine and Armenia - status update

I thought that the conflict was fully frozen, since in the last 12 months there were no changes in the areas controlled by the warring parties.

Compare the map today:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Map_of_the_war_in_Donbass.svg

With the map from 6 months ago:


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/9/91/20160524163130%21Map_of_the_war_in_Donbass.svg

I concluded that it would be irrational to keep firing without changes in controlled area. But it looks like that both sides are simply happy to fire at each other continuously from a distance, including with weapons with very low precision such as mortars.

There are detailed OSCE monitoring group daily reports if anyone is interrested:

http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/246986
Conflict Deaths have fallen sharply from 2015, but at an estimated 273 for 2016 so far I personally think it is still a lot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts#1.2C000.E2.80.939.2C999_deaths_in_current_or_past_year

Also worrying when it comes to armed conflicts in Europe is the azeri-armenian conflict:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Armenian%E2%80%93Azerbaijani_clashes

Azerbaijan attacked Armenia recently, and conquered 1 small village, and mostly likely they will do it again. Their army is stronger due to the oil money, they have high-tech suicide drones from Israel and staged ISIS-like decapitations of captured armenians.

Praying for peace in Ukraine & Armenia.


quarta-feira, 8 de junho de 2016

Why 500+ is better than expanding the same money elsewhere?

First we need to ask ourselves what is the greatest problem today in . What is the greatest problem in Poland? Is it:

a> Great risk of imminent Russian invasion to conquer the continent in a Blitzkrieg
or
b> The native population is dying out without any hope to fix the problem
?

I think that A is an imaginary problem without basis in reality, Russia has a military expenditure of like 3% of NATO total, it would be ridiculous to be defeated by an enemy over 20 times weaker, that's like Denmark invading alone Nazi Germany in 1939, besides the fact that there is no rational reason why Russia would attack at all, while B is the real problem. Please look at this chart:

http://www.demographics.at/images/growth-decline/WPP2015_Tot-Pop_Ethiopia-Egypt-Poland_1950-2100.gif



Poland is headed to 22 million people by 2100. Germans in Germany are decreasing by 400.000 per year. Official German Government projects this will increase to a drop of 700.000 germans every year in a few decades. That's like losing a Stalingrad battle every year. The same in every other country in Europe.

Natality is also dropping in the USA and Brazil, by the way, today the only countries in the west left with 2-3 children per woman being in spanish-speaking americas.

And this is not the end. The trend shows no sign of abading and if it is not stopped fast the long term trend is continuing until it will become trivial for islamists to pull out a new "conquest of the americas". Except that now we will be the indians with inferior population dynamics. It might be the case that in 200 years no-one will remember that Europe was Christian just like in 1800 no-one remembered that the americas were not Christian 300 years before and today noone remembers that Turkey was once a Christian country before 1100. A lot of attention is given to the refugees, but what really makes islamization a possible future is not the refugees themselves, no amount of european refugees could make Africa non-black because africans are simply too many and too fertile. What trully makes islamic refugees an existential threat is the weak fertility of europeans. If europeans had an african fertility the refugees would be absorved by the dynamic majority.

About the costs: PLN 20 billion per year look like a lot, but only if you ignore that today 3 people work to pay the retirement of every emeryt. But in 2050 1.5 people will work for every emeryt. That's a budget hole of over 200 billions per year alone. So the costs of not fixing the population drop, are much, much higher than the costs of trying to do something about it. And I don't see how F-16's will fix this budget hole in retirement accounts.

What I don't like about the program is that it's too little of an incentive IMHO to convince people with 2 children to have a 3rd one. I think that incentive for the 3rd child should be massive, pretty much making it a no-brainer decision. I don't see how the program will move the fertility numbers by 0,6 that we need. Maybe it will add 0,1 or something, far too little to fix the problem. Also lacking is a campaign with outdoors, etc, explaining this simple table to people:

Nr of Children
per woman
Poland 2015Poland Target

PercentPercent



030%30%
120%10%
237%0
37%47%
43%7%
53%3%
6
3%



Fertility1,452,1

30% of woman have zero children today and most likely will continue to have zero children regardless of what we do, so we need to move the vast majority of families (like 50% of all the woman) to 3 children in order to achieve the survival level of 2,1 children per woman.

The only good news lately on the topic is that we are importing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians per year, which pretty much gives Poland "time to think", but not much. Ukraine is experiencing it's own populational collapse so the source of Ukranians will dry out, it is not a long term solution. But is positive for Poland.